Well, it's a win for over-paid unions, but a loss for taxpayers needing services, especially those in cities that have failed in part due to unfair labor agreements.
Well, it's a win for over-paid unions, but a loss for taxpayers needing services, especially those in cities that have failed in part due to unfair labor agreements.
define over-paid. I seriously doubt that you have even a vague understanding of what goes into PLAs. Often they include fairly large concessions by various trade unions
How do you concede something you don't have? If I go into compensation negotiations for a new job, and I ask for $100,000 and they come back with $50,000, I haven't "conceded" $50,000 - as I didn't have it to begin with.
PLA's are confusing. Isn't it a bit like having to negotiate how many bushels of bananas and at what price you are going to buy them at before even walking into Eastern market?
actually, they are usually used on projects that would fall under the state-issued wage rate schedulesHow do you concede something you don't have? If I go into compensation negotiations for a new job, and I ask for $100,000 and they come back with $50,000, I haven't "conceded" $50,000 - as I didn't have it to begin with.
PLA's are confusing. Isn't it a bit like having to negotiate how many bushels of bananas and at what price you are going to buy them at before even walking into Eastern market?
Define over-paid...
Making above market wages, then throwing in no-deductible insurance, then throw in a pension on top of it. Then add on top of that zero accountability for doing your job.
I'm not a fan of unions at all. They contributed to the near demise of the domestic auto industry. They cause local governments to pay big bucks for labor.
In general, labor unions are very good for the people the benefit, it's own members, and not good for the people they provide services for.
The UAW recently has done a good job being more competitive in terms of labor costs, but they're still providing labor far above market prices.
"Making above market wages, then throwing in no-deductible insurance, then throw in a pension on top of it. Then add on top of that zero accountability for doing your job."
Perfect description of many corporate CEOs.
Right, don't hear a firestorm about these CEO's making outlandishly ridiculous salaries. I suppose that's ok too.
Not much value in heading into Union-bashing here -- opinions are pretty much locked-down .... but for what its worth ....
The reason this is a bigger deal than CEO pay is because you and I pay for these wages from our taxes.
Public sector unions, and 'prevailing wage' rules protect workers from market forces -- at taxpayer expense.
btw, the Judges ruling is offensive. Apparently, its not legal to be anti-union...."But Judge Roberts did not stop at simply striking down the law, she went on to question the motives of those who put it in place, suggesting that anti-union sentiment was at the root of the legislation:
In her ruling, Roberts disputed that the laws intent was to level the playing field."
I didn't know you couldn't have anti-union motives in America.
You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question.
Case in point, Alan Mulally at Ford. His big payday that's in the news today is from a stock grant. The private owners [[not taxpayers) chose to dilute their ownership of the company by a marginal amount and give that ownership stake to Mulally based on his excellent performance. It's not money from taxpayers, or even from the privately-owned company's bank accounts. Essentially, it's no one else's business.
"You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question. "
But those CEOs, especially in the banking sector, ravaged our national economy and then had to be bailed out by the taxpayers.
I understand how they get paid in principle, but that doesn't make it right. Executive Compensation is out of control.You don't pay those CEO salaries, unless you're an owner of the company in question.
Case in point, Alan Mulally at Ford. His big payday that's in the news today is from a stock grant. The private owners [[not taxpayers) chose to dilute their ownership of the company by a marginal amount and give that ownership stake to Mulally based on his excellent performance. It's not money from taxpayers, or even from the privately-owned company's bank accounts. Essentially, it's no one else's business.
|
Bookmarks